Equitable CITE Pedagogy: Putting it into Praxis

By the CUNY CITE Equity Working Group

One of the core values that drives CUNY’s Computing Integrated Teacher Education (CITE) initiative is equity. But what does equity mean? Given the multifaceted nature of the word, and just how often we were using it to inspire our community’s design and pedagogy, CITE staff, researchers, and participating CUNY faculty saw an opportunity to do some collective sense-making and synthesis. It was important to get clear about what we mean by equity because there have been many attempts to leverage technology in education to benefit “all” over the years, only to ultimately reinforce inequity.
        A CITE working group made up of CUNY teacher educators, researchers, interns, and designers got together to dig in and think deeply about what “Equitable CITE Pedagogy” means in our initiative. We considered our own perspectives, lived experiences, and positionalities, reviewed faculty artifacts, frameworks from other efforts and the literature, and synthesized ideas through collective sense-making over time. In this resource, we share the outcome of this work.

The work of this group is not over with this resource. We also recognize it is far from comprehensive. We hope that readers comment on what’s useful, on what’s missing, and to help us check our assumptions. We hope to continually revisit and evolve this resource as our community grows and learns together.

Suggested Citation: The CUNY CITE Equity Working Group. (2023). Equitable CITE Pedagogy: Putting it into Praxis. City University of New York - Computing Integrated Teacher Education. https://cuny.manifoldapp.org/read/equitable-cite-pedagogy-putting-it-into-praxis/section/45bc24dc-6adb-49a9-96b8-25dfd185e37a 

What is Equitable CITE Pedagogy?

Equitable CITE pedagogy includes a set of goals that operationalize equitable processes and outcomes, some approaches to design, and a set of guiding design principles.

Our Goals
Equitable CITE pedagogy seeks to…

- empower learners and communities

- promote joyful, meaningful learning

- transform institutions towards justice

….for teacher educators, teacher candidates and alum, Pk-12 students, families, and communities.

Our Approaches

To meet those goals, we hope teacher educators and candidates engage in affirming, learner-centered design processes guided by equity-focused mindsets such as practicing self-awareness, recognizing oppression, seeking liberatory collaboration, working with fear and discomfort, and transforming power.

Design Principles

We hope that teacher educators’ and teacher candidates’ designs and implementations are guided by the following principles.

- Co-learning and co-construction of knowledge in communities

- Supporting learner agency to tinker with, modify and create tools

- Centering creativity and expression

- Mobilizing computing for social action

- Vetting and critiquing tools and tech cultures

- Adopting expansive notions of learning

In this resource, we include ideas for some "moves" or practices that educators might make to center these principles in their designs and implementations.

These approaches, mindsets, design principles and moves are not checkboxes, but rather should be considered holistically together.

Rationale and Context

In the Summer of 2022, as the CITE initiative invited faculty to design computing integrated teacher education artifacts, CITE PD providers asked them to share the pedagogical moves they were making in service of equity as they taught about, with, through, and against technology. In the Fall, as the CITE research practice partnership began to review faculty artifacts, we found that participants interpreted that part of the task in many ways – they brought with them their own definitions of equity, informed by different lived experiences, research and practice traditions.

By supporting a plurality of visions for equitable practice, we can respect diversity of thought and practice – there’s no one right way to think about equity. At the same time, as CITE research assistant Anne Drew Hu put it, “just because we use the same words, doesn’t mean we are on the same page, epistemologically or ideologically.” For example, some thought about equity as "leveling the playing field", others as meeting students' diverse needs, or as fostering critical consciousness and enacting social justice. Those different notions imply different kinds of learning environments. Research assistant Meg Ray added:

It’s important to get clear about what we mean by equity because there have been many attempts to leverage technology in education to benefit “all” over the years, and yet many of these efforts ultimately reproduce or further exacerbate inequities. For example, as educators teach online with the aim of improving educational outcomes for all, research shows that students in low-income neighborhoods are at a higher risk of falling behind (Bruce, 2020). Through CITE, we have an opportunity to put values around equity at the center of this initiative.

We believed doing some collective sense-making and synthesis could help us all learn from each other, consider dimensions of equity we might have missed otherwise due to our positionality and context, and continue to push our practice. It would also help new participants in our community know the values that the initiative stands for.

To address those goals, CITE convened a working group of CUNY teacher educators, researchers, interns, and designers to help us think about what “Equitable CITE Pedagogy” means in our initiative.

Our Collaborative Process

As we put this resource together, the CITE Equity Working Group shared and considered our own perspectives, lived experiences, and positionalities, reviewed faculty artifacts, frameworks from other efforts and the literature, and synthesized ideas through collective sense-making over time. In line with our learner-centered approach, we also sought perspectives of the population the initiative is meant to serve most directly – teacher candidates and CUNY education students. We visited classes to engage in “focus group” style conversations with teacher candidates. Some of their ideas are documented in a separate resource, which will be shared with the CITE community.

This work required deep and meaningful collaboration. Collective sensemaking is challenging. Trust in each other takes time to build, and team members were learning how to collaborate with one another as we went along. We had different views about equity and equitable pedagogy. It was difficult to incorporate all of these perspectives in just one resource. During the process, we missed some important perspectives and had others point them out. Conceptualizing equity collaboratively made us aware that we also had to unlearn stereotypical views and understandings about who participates in technology and STEM, which may perpetuate harm in an already challenging space. There were moments of learning through discomfort.

We brought our diverse ways of thinking about teaching, learning, and equity but acknowledge we all have gaps in understanding and experience. There are likely important perspectives missing. Our hope is that others will bring them to our attention, and that together we can learn and continue adding and revising this document, which for us, is always a work in progress.

Unpacking inequity

As we explored equity as a team, we had to unpack inequity. Educational institutions like CUNY, and STEM fields and learning environments can be inaccessible, oppressive and even violent places, especially for people marginalized, racialized, and minoritized in our societies. Systems of oppression – racism, anti-Blackness, sexism, misogynoir, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia / transmisia, classism, ableism, ageism, Islamophobia, antisemitism and so on – have been cultivated during historical processes of imperialism, slavery, and colonialism. They continue to reproduce themselves in our institutions, interactions, policies, cultures, practices and technologies. There are many inequities our CITE Pedagogy might respond to. We honed in on some below.

Digital technology can connect us and help us solve problems, provide platforms for creativity, expression, learning, entertainment, solidarity, and activism. But tech also plays a role in fostering injustice through, among other things, polluting our environment, making mass surveillance easier, and feeding into misinformation and labor exploitation (Lachney et al., 2021). Many technologies and the algorithms that drive them embed the biases of their creators.  and of society at large leading to real impacts for especially marginalized racial, gender, linguistic, and ability groups (Ko et al., 2020; Vakil et al., 2019). In part, that’s because the technology industry, tech communities, and STEM education in the U.S. continue to exclude various marginalized, racialized, and minoritized communities (see Daniels et al. 2019, for a racial analysis of the tech industry; Margolis & Fisher, 2003, for a gender analysis; and Noble & Roberts, 2019 for an analysis considering race, class, and gender).

Part of the reason we see exclusion and marginalization in tech is lack of early and sustained access to technology, STEM and computing education. 100Kin10 reviewed national-level data to answer the question “Which communities are most excluded from STEM learning?” The full findings from 100Kin10, as well as a visual presentation, highlight that Black, Latinx, and Native American/Native Alaskan learners, students in high-poverty schools, and people with disabilities experienced high rates of exclusion, as measured by K-12 STEM achievement, STEM outcomes in postsecondary institutions and the workforce, student interest in STEM subjects and careers, access to STEM courses and resources, access to teachers, and course-taking behavior (100Kin10.org, 2021, 2022). Girls and women also experienced exclusion in high-level STEM courses in high school, at the undergraduate level, and in the workforce. Only 5.6% of computer science students were designated English Learners (compared to 11.2% English learners statewide) and 7.6% of computer science students had disabilities (compared to 12.9% students with disabilities statewide). The research group noted a lack of data about STEM learning exclusion for nonbinary students and workers and the LGBTQ+ community. Zooming in on the New York City context, while the CSforAll initiative has reached many schools across the city, "schools not offering CS in New York City generally served higher-needs students, including English language learners, students with disabilities, low-income students, and students who were not proficient in math or English language arts" (more at Fancsali, 2022).

Statistics like these provide a helpful landscape for the field, and shed light on structural inequities. But we also noted there are real limitations to understanding the issues through the lens of category-based statistics. Firstly, categories themselves can be problematic and do not capture the nuanced experiences of people labeled within them – including our diverse CUNY student population. While some groups may appear to be excluded or included in STEM at high or low rates overall, looking more closely at subgroups reveals different stories. In data, for example, we may see that “Asian” and “white” students are more represented in tech fields as compared to the population of the United States, but the data do not tell us why we see these trends. Nor does it capture the within-group diversity of people labeled with those categories – or others, like Latinx, Black, and Indigenous. That kind of generalization leads to stereotypical images of who is and is not expected to be a part of tech communities, perpetuating stereotypes like the model minority myth (see also Shah, 2020). It can also pit minoritized groups against each other and create an illusion that those in the field are not excluded or marginalized upon entry into the profession, as evidenced by the high proportion of Asian^[1] STEM workers reportedly experiencing racial discrimination in the STEM field—second only to Black workers among all major racial/ethnic groups (100Kin10.org, 2022).

Overall, considering aspects of identity separately doesn’t capture the ways that people at the intersections of multiple non-dominant identities can experience complex, layered forms of marginalization and/or privilege (Crenshaw, 1991; Tatum, 2003) when it comes to education in general and tech and computing education specifically. Many of them have used their perspectives to resist the dominant narrative (or lack thereof) by sharing their own experiences and lived realities. For example, the WOC Archive aims to push back against the erasure of matriarchs of color by telling their stories through interviews and digital collage work. Books like Algorithms of Oppression (Noble, 2018), and projects like the Algorithmic Justice League (spearheaded by Joy Buolamwini, who realized that facial recognition software didn’t register her as a Black woman) raise awareness about and seek to push back against racially biased tech.

As we attended to the data around inequity, we also noted that while it gave us a sense for exclusion / inclusion in “official” STEM courses, higher education, and industry, it did not shed light on all of the computing and digital literacies and STEM knowledge that people apply in other contexts and venues. Our institutions sanction and maintain hierarchies around who “knows,” the language practices that should be used to express knowledge, and what counts as “knowledge” and learning – often privileging ways of knowing, computing, and learning of dominant groups.

Recognizing that tech and STEM education have perpetuated oppression in different ways is necessary in order to move towards equitable CITE — we unpack this further in our “cultivating equity-focused mindsets” section.

Sifting through equity discourses

CITE’s equity working group reviewed literature and frameworks that shared different ideas about equitable pedagogy and what it is meant to do in the world. We considered them critically, making decisions based on our values and what we heard from teacher candidates and faculty. We also considered our CUNY context, our stakeholders’ spheres of influence, and CITE’s mission to integrate computing into teacher education.

Among the equity resources we reviewed, some defined equity as “equality,” meaning, the imperative was to provide all learners with the same resources (including technology, computing and digital literacies curricula, teachers) to meet the same ends (Philip & Azevedo, 2017). Some on the team critiqued this way of thinking because it ignored the fact that learners all need different kinds of resources and might have different goals. This discourse was also problematic to us because it perpetuated a “race-evasive” orientation – one that erases or ignores how racism combined with other -isms continue to shape people’s experiences – and a “myth of meritocracy” – that our societies are places of opportunity where those who work hard can always advance.

We also reviewed resources that centered another popular way to think about equity goals: “broadening participation” to include students traditionally marginalized in STEM and computing fields. This kind of discourse might have great impacts for diversifying fields and including learners who want to go into them, but ultimately, if our notion of equity stops here, we miss thinking about diverse outcomes for learners that might not want to go into STEM fields (Lachney et al., 2021). Also, if the prime goal of our work is to support students to learn the skills they need in order to participate and “fit in” to fields and industry, we risk perpetuating the damaging aspects of those fields, including their cultures of exclusion (Philip & Sengupta, 2021). We have the opportunities, with our pedagogy, to help our learners re-define the fields they go into, not just participate in them.

We also took a look at discourses that promoted equity as “access.” In describing their equity “moves” in the summer of 2022, many faculty identified how they promoted access to technology, curriculum, and the field by using freely available tools, scaffolding learning experiences, clearly articulating expectations, and helping teacher candidates make links to K-12 classrooms and certification requirements. Even as faculty see results from these kinds of activities, it’s important to take into account recent work that has interrogated that discourse, asking “access to what?” Many answer “technology.” But access to tech means little without access to expertise, time and resources to learn to use those tools and devices.

Others, like our school systems and policies, answer the question of “access to what?” by offering up standardized curriculum and measures of achievement. Being able to meet those expectations can bring learners power. But those expectations also narrow what counts as learning and what’s worth learning, and often seek to assimilate diverse learners and communities to a dominant white, English-speaking, Euro-centric norm – treating many learners at a deficit. There are cultural histories of making, computing, designing and using technology that are left out of the narrative – might our curriculum provide access to those? Finally, achieving according to standard metrics isn’t a panacea for equity. For example, people racialized in our society as Black, Latinx, Asian, and Native American still encounter racism, even when they perform in ways that would be recognized as “standard” or even “exemplary” (see Flores & Rosa, 2015; Baker-Bell, 2020 for reflections on the limitations of teaching children to “code-switch” for more on this argument.)  Equitable pedagogy can support students and educators to not just “play the game” but to change it (Gutiérrez, 2009).

To those ends, we resonated with the messaging of community activists, educators, and movements that have envisioned education as part of broader liberatory social justice projects. Scholar Gholdy Muhammad’s framework for literacy education – inspired by her research on the practices of Black literary societies of the 19th century – underscores that educators should be “responsive to the social and political times” and teach students to respond to oppression (Muhammad, 2020, p. 52). Brazilian educator, philosopher and activist Paulo Freire similarly highlights the connection between literacy – reading the word and reading the world – and liberation of the oppressed and their oppressors, writing: “As long as the oppressed remain unaware of the causes of their condition, they fatalistically ‘accept’ their exploitation” (2012, p. 64). Black feminist scholar, theorist, and educator bell hooks also viewed education as “in the practice of freedom” (1994, p 21), highlighting how “critical pedagogies of liberation” (1994, p. 89) embrace a range of ways of knowing and theorizing as they critique dominant structures.

We were captivated and inspired by these social justice approaches because they have the potential to spark the kind of systemic change needed to sustain learners and their communities in all of their diversity, and wanted to make sure our work would live alongside and support those purposes. At the same time as we embraced those ideas we also acknowledged CITE isn’t explicitly a social justice movement – it’s an educational initiative, embedded in a large, state-and city-funded institution. Our positionality shapes the kinds of claims we can make and work we can do. Large bureaucracies move slowly and can be risk averse, especially around recognizing systemic, institutionalized racism. CITE's funders have entanglements and make investments which may or may not align with our values. Big structural changes at CUNY and beyond may be needed to claim we are a liberatory project.

And yet, teacher educators and staff can advocate and educate towards values around equity and liberation (including social justice, decoloniality, abolition and so on), and have influence over what happens in CUNY classrooms and programs. We can promote sociocritical critique and action for teacher educators and their learners. Popular culturally relevant and sustaining frameworks (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris & Alim, 2017) emphasize socio-critical consciousness – a theme which has been taken up in computing ed as critical (Ko et al., 2020; Vakil & Higgs, 2019), justice centered (Lachney et al., 2021), and culturally relevant / responsive computing (Madkins et al, 2020; Scott et al., 2015; Davis et al., 2021). Moves to bring digital activism and racial literacies together have also sought to support transformational approaches to pre-service teacher preparation (Price-Dennis & Sealy-Ruiz, 2021). Some CUNY faculty’s CITE artifact designs worked towards those ends by providing opportunities for students to have conversations about representation and dominant narratives in tools, technologies and curricula, and “to speak truth to power,” as one faculty member put it.

We also resonated with Zaretta Hammonds’ work, which defined equity as ensuring all students have the ability to be “powerful learners.”

This means, our work might strive towards helping teacher candidates and their learners develop cognitive tools and learning habits to engage in inquiry and to flourish – those tools and habits might include intellectual curiosity, pro-learning attitudes and values, and skill sets for problem-solving and self-expression. Computing and digital literacies – along with culturally responsive approaches – can be especially helpful at cultivating those last two. Recent empirical research shows the value of this approach to equity - of providing students not just access to technology, but providing students opportunities to be powerful learners in relation to those technologies. In her studies of over 2,000 adolescents learning new technologies, Cassidy Puckett identified five habits that supported youth’s digital adaptability. These habits include attending to the design logic of the tech, figuring out ways to use the tech more efficiently, managing frustration and boredom, being willing to try and fail, and seeking out help when stuck (Puckett, 2022).

In our review, we also found discourses defining equitable pedagogies as designing learning experiences around students’ interests and needs. CUNY CITE faculty members who saw this as their goal tried things out like guiding open-ended, interest-driven inquiry processes for students to learn new tools. Faculty made plans to solicit students’ feedback about activities, and to respond to their input, and provided multiple entry points and modalities for learning, given teacher candidates’ complex and busy lives. Many leveraged technology to provide choices for how students could demonstrate their learning. Others interpreted equity as affirming learners and diversity by making learning relevant to teacher candidates’ lives, identities and communities, and modeling how they might do the same for K-12 learners. They aimed to begin explorations into new tech tools and literacies with teacher candidates’ own stories, experiences and cultural practices. Designs incorporated texts, videos, and other resources that would be “windows and mirrors” (Sims Bishop, 1990; Harris, 2007) for teacher candidates and their students. Faculty encouraged teacher candidates to use their full language repertoires to express themselves, and to encourage the same of their K-12 learners.

Ultimately, we resonated most with culturally sustaining and relevant visions for equitable pedagogy that promoted cultural and linguistic pluralism, the empowerment and agency of learners traditionally marginalized in education, the fostering of critical consciousness, and the capacity to learn, participate in communities, and take action to transform institutions towards justice. Important to note is that these more transformative views of equity live on a continuum with access-based approaches (Grapin et al., 2023). They are not mutually exclusive, though there are tensions between them that educators and students may have to negotiate.

Our Goals

Equitable CITE pedagogy seeks to…

- empower learners and communities

- promote joyful, meaningful learning

- transform institutions towards justice

….for teacher educators, teacher candidates and alum, P-12 students, families, and communities.

Read on to learn more about what we mean by each of these goals.

Empower learners and communities

Equitable CITE pedagogy seeks to empower teacher candidates and their K-12 students as learners. From a cognitive perspective, this means helping learners develop and leverage computing and digital literacies to support “the kind of intellectual curiosity and engagement” needed for “information processing and meaning making” (Hammond, as quoted in Rebora, 2021, p. 14-15). This kind of development happens when learners can build upon their prior experiences and are supported in their multifaceted identities (Hammond, 2021).

To us, promoting empowerment also means providing learners with the tools they need to forge hopeful and just futures (Winn, 2021). That might look like supporting teacher candidates to leverage computing and digital literacies for a range of purposes they find meaningful – for example, to express themselves, to inform others, to create, solve problems, critique and take action against aspects of schooling, the world, and technology they find unjust, to connect with and contribute to their communities (online and off), to pursue potential post-school pathways, to inquire into and explore phenomena that interest them. We connect learners' empowerment to sustaining them and their communities.

We also hope CITE pedagogy supports learners of all backgrounds and experiences to feel empowered vis a vis technology itself – to feel they can tinker, critique, and experiment with tools, to troubleshoot when things don’t work right. Educators in particular should feel empowered to vet and modify tools with learners in mind, locate new tools, and even create the tools they need when the ones out there don’t meet their needs.

CITE pedagogy also seeks to empower faculty, as bell hooks continues to remind us:

Foster joyful, meaningful learning

We don’t think computing / digital life is inherently joyful for everyone, but we do believe our pedagogy can support learners to leverage digital and computing literacies to communicate, collaborate, make connections, and to express themselves creatively – promoting, if not joy, then meaning.

To unpack that idea, we start with joy. Especially in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, it is easy to lose sight of joy. Rates of depression have only increased in recent years (Goodwin et al., 2022), with some technologies exacerbating the problem (e.g. Common Sense, 2020). We are fed images of just how fatal inequity can be at an alarming rate. Even in our quest to bring awareness and change to systemic injustice, we can paint a picture so bleak that it becomes impossible to feel joy in the face of it. How can we ask ourselves and our students to grapple with oppressive systems without finding joy in our learning, schools, work, and existence? Joy is important for its own sake – not just as a means to reinforce institutional standards of learning. Joy has been an important tool for sustaining ourselves in the everyday. It can also promote the engagement needed to support intellectual curiosity and cognitive and intellectual development (Hammond, 2021; Muhammad, 2020).

By suggesting that joyful learning might be among the outcomes of CITE work, we are not suggesting all learners and educators will or should find computing / digital life or education in general inherently joyful. Discourse in a lot of online and tech spaces can be toxic. Learning often happens as we grapple with conflict and states of disequilibrium. Along the same vein, some researchers have empirically demonstrated that emphasis on learning-related positive affect, such as joy, may be culturally bound and that, in fact, some high achievers even find the idea of learning being joyful or fun difficult to absorb (Li, 2012).  Additionally, we know computing educators often overestimate students’ enjoyment of computing because they extrapolate from their own experiences (Yadav & Shah, 2023).

But we do endorse the idea that joy and meaning can emerge in the learning process as students sustain flow states in their “zone of proximal development,” make personal and social connections, and develop self-efficacy that can help us all sustain ourselves and our communities. Fostering joy, meaning and intellectual curiosity might look different for all learners, but digital literacies and computational thinking might be mobilized to support those processes.

Transform institutions towards justice

Our work in computing integrated teacher education alone cannot redress all of the injustices facing teacher candidates, K-12 learners and their communities. And yet we think there are roles for CUNY CITE, participating faculty and their teacher candidates to play in transforming the policies, curricula, technologies, and everyday interactions that make up our institutions to promote justice. As educator, activist, and philosopher bell hooks writes, “commitment to engaged pedagogy carries with it the willingness to be responsible, not to pretend that professors do not have the power to change the direction of our students’ lives” (hooks, 1994, p. 206).

Firstly, our pedagogy can work towards transforming the parts of our systems where we have some control: the classroom. We can push back against white mainstream assimilative schooling by supporting teacher candidates to incorporate technology in ways that affirm, build on, and extend their and their students’ cultural and linguistic practices, following a provocation by Alim et al.(2020):

Thinking with “speculative design” traditions, we can imagine new kinds of learning environments (Dunne and Rabby, 2013) – our design principles offer some ideas towards those ends. We can promote critical consciousness and action regarding injustices that learners and educators face. We can support teacher candidates – a majority of them at CUNY being women of color – to use computing and digital tools and methods to meet their goals, providing counter-narratives for dominant discourses about who does STEM and for what. We can help teacher candidates push back against (educational) technologies that embed biases that disadvantage their learners.

We can also promote learning about, with, and from people who embody different identities and experiences to work towards solidarity and shared missions. By combining forces, we can increase our political power and make changes on a larger scale than we could individually. That being said, much like intersectionality can shed light on the complex ways people embodying various dominant and non-dominant identities navigate oppression, creating diverse coalitions centered around equity can create complex circumstances within groups. Internalized ideas of misogyny and white supremacy can cause issues of inequity, racism, and prejudice to surface, even from people from marginalized identities. Working towards common goals requires us to continually confront our own biases and be comfortable living with the resulting discomfort.

Depending on CUNY faculty members’ positionality in our institutions, we may also be part of conversations and decisions that consider equity at programmatic or institutional levels. Some of us may be in positions to audit curriculum, policies, fieldwork placements, outcomes measures, and budgeting to ensure the institution has the capacity for computing integration, that all students – including members of marginalized groups and their intersections – have access to those integrations and participate, and that students’ experiences are empowering and fulfilling (Fletcher & Warner, 2021; Gransbury et al., 2023). Some may be in a position to welcome, support, and collaborate equitably with colleagues across ranks and backgrounds, and to break down departmental and disciplinary silos that keep students and faculty alike from having empowering learning experiences. Some may be in a position to call out a microaggression during a CITE committee meeting, or to make hiring decisions with equity and computing in mind.

How do we reach the goals above? Our approaches and design principles for equitable CITE pedagogy outline some moves that faculty might make around selecting tools, crafting learning activities and environments, and building community.

Our Approaches

To meet goals around equity, we hope teacher educators and candidates engage in affirming, learner-centered design processes guided by equity-focused mindsets.

Affirming, learner-centered design processes

Too often, when educators integrate technology into their teaching, they lead with the tech. We instead encourage CUNY faculty to center and affirm learners. This requires resisting deficit-thinking and narratives that suggest that particular faculty, teacher candidates, students, and communities “can’t do computing or STEM” in favor of acknowledging and building on learners’ strengths and ways of knowing.

Affirming learners in CITE means recognizing that diversity is the norm. It means that CUNY faculty and teacher candidates take time to understand the diverse experiences, repertoires of practice (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003), identities, language / communication practices, and abilities of their learners, including the ways they navigate systemic -isms in our society around race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, educational experiences, immigration histories, ability, age and so on. It means meeting them where they are developmentally, and taking into account learners’ agency, their health and mental health, and the lives they have outside the classroom that influence their decisions and engagement. This might be done by collecting and analyzing data about learners and communities, and ensuring data sources are holistic and highlight the assets as well as challenges facing those populations.

Importantly for our work in computing and digital literacies integration, affirming learners means acknowledging learners’ digital lives – the experiences they’ve had using and learning about, with, through, and against technology and computing, and what they hope to do in their classrooms in the future. Our teacher candidates and their learners may have varied levels of access to devices and broadband and experiences with technology in their prior schooling. They may use technology for “hanging out” (communication, social media, gaming, entertainment), for “messing around” in different online communities, or “geeking out” (diving deep into online communities, producing and sharing computing or digital projects) (Ito et al., 2019) or engaging in digital activism (Watkins, 2018; Price-Dennis & Sealy-Ruiz, 2021). Some might already employ different kinds of technology in their classrooms everyday.

To affirm learners in the design process involves building trust with diverse groups of collaborators – including those who will use or be impacted by the design. It involves defining opportunities and challenges facing learners, imagining and prototyping interventions, observing what happens, and iterating based on feedback and analysis of the outcomes for different groups of students given their intersectional identities. The National Equity Project illustrates this design process well in their visualization of their Liberatory Design for Equity Process (Anaissie et. al., 2021).

Cultivating equity-focused mindsets

Equity work is not about box checking, and it’s truly never done. It involves committing oneself to a process and a reflexive journey of making incremental (and sometimes more transformative) changes over time. There are many mindsets that can help us and our teacher candidates on that journey and as we design effective equitable computing-integrated pedagogy. The National Equity Project identifies twelve useful ones for “Liberatory Design” – you can find descriptions for all of them here (Anaissie et. al., 2021). We’re going to highlight a few of them below for our community’s reflection.

- Practice self-awareness

- Recognize oppression

- Seek liberatory collaboration

- Work with fear and discomfort

- Work to transform power

It’s important for CITE educators and teacher candidates to practice self-reflection and self-awareness. Inevitably, who we are – our identities, how we communicate, our mindsets and cultural practices – are lenses that help us perceive and act. To design and implement effective equitable pedagogy, we must be aware of what our lenses help us pay attention to and prioritize in classrooms and what they may obscure, bias, or prompt us to ignore. Our past experiences with technology, and our values and beliefs related to technology are particularly salient for CITE.

We must also recognize oppression. Our experiences and those of our learners are shaped by systemic power relationships and systems of oppression. By drawing connections between identity, historical and social processes, and experience, we can better understand and attend to the structural barriers facing especially marginalized students and colleagues as we plan for and implement CITE. According to scholars of racial literacies Yolanda Sealy-Ruiz and Angel Acosta, developing this awareness involves undergoing a radical inner transformation – excavating the “guck” that history and present-day society have socialized us all into, including the harmful stereotypes and assumptions we've internalized, even if unwittingly (Sealy-Ruiz, n.d; Adjapong & Porcher, n.d.). It involves examining self in relation to what, how and who you teach, as well as in relation to social power hierarchies and how they manifest in education, in technology / computing, and at their intersections (CS-Educational Justice Collective, unpublished manuscript).

Committing to educational equity work means, as the National Equity Project puts it, seeking liberatory collaboration, including deeply listening to and privileging the voices of those who have experienced marginalization in our systems as we discuss how to change those systems. This involves working with fear and discomfort – generating protocols to name and explore fear and discomfort, but also reflecting on it: “does it fuel our creativity, or is it causing harm?” (Anaissie et. al., 2021, p. 18). When we cause harm in our work, interactions, or collaborations – even unintentionally – we take responsibility and work to repair that harm.

Applying these mindsets can help us work to transform power in our interpersonal relationships, pedagogies, and the systems where we have influence.

Design Principles

We hope that teacher educators’ and candidates’ designs and implementations are guided by the following principles:

- Co-learning and co-constructing knowledge in communities

- Supporting learner agency to tinker with, modify and create tools

- Centering creativity and expression

- Mobilizing computing and digital tools for social action

- Vetting and critiquing tools and tech cultures

- Adopting expansive notions of learning

Read on to learn more about each of these.

Co-learning and co-constructing knowledge in communities

Formal schooling has historically focused on individual learning (privileging some, marginalizing others). CITE pedagogies instead promote collective learning and knowledge construction. This makes sense in the context of technology-integrated learning – our networked information society can lend itself towards learning in communities: grappling with diverse perspectives, and striving towards collective knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Technology also evolves quickly. The old notion of teachers holding all of the knowledge is simply an impossible expectation. CITE encourages educators to “let go” of the idea that they must be experts to play important roles as facilitators of computing integrated learning in classrooms. Fostering equity within learning communities additionally requires being mindful of power dynamics and ensuring that the contributions and participation of students who historically have been disempowered in educational spaces are lifted up.

Check out the “Moves” section below to learn more about equitable practices for forging communities that co-learn and co-construct knowledge together.

Supporting learner agency to tinker with, modify and create tools

Too often, tech tools are thrust upon educators and students in ways that stifle their agency, make them feel incapable, or limit possibilities. CITE pedagogy can support us all to take up agentive orientations towards technology.

How do we get there? Creating low-stakes opportunities for taking risks with new tools is a great start towards fostering that ownership. Additionally, we know that children benefit the most from tech experiences that are self-directed (meaning, the user, not the tech, sets the pace and pathway of the interaction), voluntary, open-ended, and that provide opportunities for growth, community connection (Davis, 2023), and productive struggle (Hammond, 2021).

In agentive learning moments, learners build meaning based on prior experiences, observation and action on their worlds. Some moves we might make in support of those ends include:  

Centering creativity

Our pedagogy can support equity by providing opportunities for teacher candidates and K-12 learners to be creative and explore unexpected, playful angles. Creativity is for everyone, not just the students who get labeled “artsy” (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010). Creativity is linked to learning and problem-solving in computing and other academic fields (Royston & Reiter-Palmon, 2019).

Learners can use computing and digital tools to exercise their creativity. In creative computing, people engage in computing for communication, graphic and media design, artistic expression, and for augmenting reality (Liu et al., 2017). Combined with culturally and linguistically relevant approaches and universal design for learning, centering creativity can open up opportunities for those usually marginalized in tech fields and education to speak to and solve problems specific to their communities.

It’s important to recognize that creative computing has the potential to both promote and hinder equitable practices. For example, McIlwain (2019) describes efforts by a group of Black pioneers who established online communities in support of Afrocentric narratives as a prime example of creative computing vis a vis equity. At the same time, as will be unpacked in the next section, “creative” processes don’t always yield outcomes that are beneficial to all - many tools created by the tech industry embed racial biases, are inaccessible, or solve problems faced by narrow groups. For this reason, participants in the CITE project might be mindful of the ways we help learners to think about their diverse audiences and intended users of their designs as they engage in creative computing.

Assessment of creative work can be especially challenging. Assessing process, not just product, and employing strategies for peer and self-assessment may also be helpful.

Vetting and critiquing tools, tech and tech cultures

As noted in our “unpacking inequity” section, technology, and the cultures around tech and tech ed can contribute to systemic injustices. If we want to engage in computing education in ways that are “justice centered,” we must reckon with that fact. As computing ed researchers Michael Lachney, Jean Ryoo and Rafi Santo put it:

Given our focus on supporting teacher candidates to engage about, with, through and AGAINST technology, CITE pedagogy can promote teacher candidates’ exploration of that tension, and support them to consider how they would strategically bring a critical computing and technology lens to their work in classrooms and with students.

One place to start is by supporting teacher candidates to understand the impacts and risks associated with technological tools as they relate to their lives and those of their students, and to critically vet tools before using them in the classroom or decide not to use them at all. Technologies might not be readily accessible to students of varying abilities, might not have the capacity to be read by screen readers, or offer translations. They might include design elements or content that shape negative self-perception or mental health outcomes, or violate privacy. A Human Rights Watch Group analysis of 163 EdTech products found that 89% engaged in unethical practices that violated children’s privacy using “tracking technologies that trailed children outside of their virtual classrooms and across the internet, over time” without the consent of children or their parents (Human Rights Watch Group, 2022, p. 2). They might treat learners as passive consumers, rather than active agents, include misinformation or embed cultural bias. They may also just not be aligned to particular kinds of content learning or interactions that teachers want to foster. Educators – at the higher ed and K-12 level – should feel equipped to consider the risks and make informed decisions about what tools to bring into the classroom, and to push back against those they deem harmful, inappropriate or irrelevant.

Mobilizing computing and digital tools for social action

We hope future educators can mobilize technology, digital and computational literacies in their classrooms to encourage learners to have voice and affect change, producing more digitally conscious and prepared members of our increasingly technological community..

How might our pedagogy create opportunities for activism? If students are to resist dominant ideologies as they create, learn, and talk about digital tools, they must develop critical consciousness (Freire, 2012), or a deep understanding of the sociopolitical influences that shape our cultures (Lee & Soep, 2016). There are many ways that computing and digital literacies can support learners to surface issues that matter to them, conduct research and analysis, engage their wider communities, and the greater public, in a meaningful dialogue about injustices they or others might face. There are many tools they might use for organizing, advocacy, and sharing voice. Read on to learn about some of those moves that intersect with computing and digital literacies.

Adopting expansive notions of learning

Too often, educational spaces narrow what counts as learning to a white, Western norm. High stakes assessments expect multiple choice answers and text-based writing in Standard English. But there are many ways of learning, being, doing, expressing, creating and computing which our CITE pedagogy and assessments can highlight and be responsive to. Computing and coding are part of the human experience, and go beyond technocentric / industry-centric notions (Sengupta et. al., 2021).

We can invite students’ home lives and digital lives to inform and add to the knowledge we currently see as important within institutions, creating space for them to apply both institutional and community knowledge to the problems most salient to them. We might draw on the computing and technology traditions of non-Western and other minoritized communities and histories to help teacher candidates learn more about what technology and computing is and could be for, broadcasting the message that those ways are just as valid – and in many contexts, more so – than dominant traditions. Additionally, computing and digital tools are shaping academic disciplines and fields such as medicine, law, politics and the arts – birthing new fields including digital humanities, creative and critical computing, computational sciences. It’s important for students and teachers to experience what’s at the cutting edge.

Integrating computing into our curriculum can give us a chance to reimagine our purposes and contexts for learning. When we curate materials to read, view, and tinker with, we can draw on wider and more expansive sources of knowledge, especially those that emerge from marginalized communities and may be devalued by dominant forms of schooling, leveraging fields like ethnocomputing (Eglash et. al., 2006), and traditions and histories from feminist and Black, Indigenous perspectives (for one example that employs aspects of some Indigenous epistemologies to unpacking Artificial Intelligence, see Lewis et. al., 2018). As educators draw on different communities’ cultural practices and ways of knowing, there are some traps, tropes and pitfalls to avoid including cultural appropriation, evading talk of power and politics, and stereotyping and essentializing groups. We’ve begun compiling some resources on those issues here.

Digital tools can provide more access to diverse perspectives and the people who shape them than ever before. We can also leverage technology to help learners demonstrate what they know and can do through multimodal, multilingual means (Garcia et al., 2017). Check out some of the moves below that aim towards those ends.

References

100Kin10. (2021). UnCommission Research Summary on the Communities Most Excluded from STEM Learning. 100Kin10. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xOgL3AvDkYjyjVTxgxaDUfpUIEC7c0czPUsDSfLhYzE/edit?usp=embed_facebook 

100Kin10. (2022). BELONGING: WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT BELONGING AND HOW TO CULTIVATE IT IN STEM CLASSROOMS. 100Kin10. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1GIVR_ELq8bQu8vLa7ACRUAxOqG0la2X39poMLs6SrS0/edit#slide=id.p3

Adjapong, E., & Porcher, K. (n.d.). Self-Work before Toolkits: An Interview with Dr. Yolanda Sealey-Ruiz about Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education. https://doi.org/10.33682/fxrg-kjam

Alim, H. S., & Paris, D. (2017). What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why does it matter? In D. Paris & H. S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (1-21). Teachers College Press.

Alim, S. H., Django, P., & Wong, P. (2020). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A critical framework for centering communities. In N.S. Nasir, C. D. Lee, R. Pea & M. McKinney de Royston, Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning (pp. 261-276). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203774977-18

Andiliou, & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Examining variations among researchers’ and teachers’ conceptualizations of creativity: A review and synthesis of contemporary research. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.003

Anaissie, T., Cary, V., Clifford, D., Malarkey, T., & Wise, S. (2021). Liberatory Design. National Equity Project. http://www.liberatorydesign.com 

Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315147383 

Brennan, K. (2015). Beyond Right or Wrong: Challenges of Including Creative Design Activities in the Classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 279–299.

Bruce, A. (2020, November 23). Bridging the technological divide in education. Harvard Political Review. https://harvardpolitics.com/education-tech-gaps/ 

Common Sense. (2020). Tweens, Teens, Tech, and Mental Health: Coming of Age in an Increasingly Digital, Uncertain, and Unequal World. Common Sense. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/tweens-teens-tech-and-mental-health-coming-of-age-in-an-increasingly-digital-uncertain-and-unequal-world-2020

Daniels, J., Nkonde, M., & Mir, D. (2019). Advancing Racial Literacy in Tech: Why Ethics, Diversity in Hiring & Implicit Bias Trainings Aren’t Enough. Data and Society Fellowships Program. https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Racial_Literacy_Tech_Final_0522.pdf 

Davis, K. (2023). Technology’s Child: Digital Media’s Role in the Ages and Stages of Growing Up. The MIT Press.

Davis, K., White, S. V., Becton-Consuegra, D., & Scott, A. (2021). Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Computer Science Education: A Framework. Kapor Center. https://www.kaporcenter.org/equitablecs/ 

Dugan, J. (2021, March 1). Beware of equity traps and tropes. ASCD. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/beware-of-equity-traps-and-tropes 

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming (Illustrated edition). The MIT Press.

Eglash, R., Bennett, A., O’donnell, C., Jennings, S., & Cintorino, M. (2006). Culturally Situated Design Tools: Ethnocomputing from Field Site to Classroom. American Anthropologist, 108(2), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2006.108.2.347 

Fancsali, C., Lee, J., Hill, K., Adair, A., Rivera-Cash, E., & Clough, S. (2022). CS4All: Examining Equity in Computer Science Access and Participation in NYC Schools. NYU Research Alliance. https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/research-alliance/research/cs4all-examining-equity

Fletcher, C. L., & Warner, J. R. (2021). CAPE: a framework for assessing equity throughout the computer science education ecosystem. Communications of the ACM, 64(2), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442373

Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149

Freire, P. (2012). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). Bloomsbury.

García, O., Johnson, S. I., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The Translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon.

Gaskins, N. R., Benjamin, R., & Buechley, L. (2021). Techno-Vernacular Creativity and Innovation: Culturally Relevant Making Inside and Outside of the Classroom. The MIT Press.

Goodwin, R. D., Dierker, L. C., Wu, M., Galea, S., Hoven, C. W., & Weinberger, A. H. (2022). Trends in U.S. Depression Prevalence From 2015 to 2020: The Widening Treatment Gap. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 63(5), 726–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2022.05.014

Gralewski, & Karwowski, M. (2012). Creativity and school grades: A case from Poland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.002

Gransbury, I., McGill, M. M., Thompson, A., Heckman, S., Rosato, J., & Delyser, L. A. (2023, March). Building upon the CAPE Framework for Broader Understanding of Capacity in K-12 CS Education. https://csedresearch.org/resources/extended-cape-codebook/ 

Grapin, S. E., Pierson, A., González-Howard, M., Ryu, M., Fine, C., & Vogel, S. (2023). Science education with multilingual learners: Equity as access and equity as transformation. Science Education, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21791

Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural Ways of Learning: Individual Traits or Repertoires of Practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032005019

Gutiérrez, R. (2009). Framing Equity: Helping Students “Play the Game” and “Change the Game.” Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics, 1(1), Article 1.

Hammond, Z. (2021). Liberatory education: Integrating the science of learning and culturally responsive practice. American Educator, 45(2).

Harris, V. J. (2007). PROFILES AND PERSPECTIVES: In Praise of a Scholarly Force: Rudine Sims Bishop. Language Arts, 85(2). https://library.ncte.org/journals/LA/issues/v85-2/6175

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.

Human Rights Watch. (2022, May 25). Governments Harm Children’s Rights in Online Learning. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/25/governments-harm-childrens-rights-online-learning 

Ito, M., Baumer, S., boyd, danah, Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., Horst, H., Lange, P. G., Mahendran, D., Martinez, K. Z., Pascoe, C. J., Perkel, D., Robinson, L., Sims, C., & Tripp, L. (2019). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out kids living and learning with new media. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11832.001.0001 

Jin, C. H. (2021, May 25). 6 charts that dismantle the trope of Asian Americans as a model minority. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/25/999874296/6-charts-that-dismantle-the-trope-of-asian-americans-as-a-model-minority

Ko, A. J., Oleson, A., Ryan, N., Register, Y., Xie, B., Tari, M., Davidson, M., Druga, S., & Loksa, D. (2020).  It Is Time for More Critical CS Education: By which ‘critical’ means an intellectual stance of skepticism, centering the consequences, limitations, and unjust impacts of computing in society. Communications of the ACM, 63(11), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3424000

Lachney, M., Ryoo, J., & Santo, R. (2021). Introduction to the Special Section on Justice-Centered Computing Education, Part 1. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 21(4), 25:1-25:15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3477981

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.

Lee, C., & Soep, E. (2016). None but ourselves can free our minds: Critical computational literacy as a pedagogy of resistance. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(4), 480-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2016.1227157 

Lee, C., & Soep, E. (2023). Code for What? Computer Science for Storytelling and Social Justice. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262047456/code-for-what/ 

Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., Malyn-Smith, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Computational Thinking for Youth in Practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929902

Lewis, J. E., Arista, N., Pechawis, A., & Kite, S. (2018). Making Kin with the Machines. Journal of Design and Science. https://doi.org/10.21428/bfafd97b 

Li. (2012). Cultural foundations of learning : East and West. Cambridge University Press.

Liu, Q., L. Zou, H. Che, H. Wang, Y. Jin and H. Yang, "A Creative Computing Based Inspiration Assistant to Poem Generation," 2017 14th International Symposium on Pervasive Systems, Algorithms and Networks & 2017 11th International Conference on Frontier of Computer Science and Technology & 2017 Third International Symposium of Creative Computing (ISPAN-FCST-ISCC), Exeter, UK, 2017, pp. 469-476, doi: 10.1109/ISPAN-FCST-ISCC.2017.63.

Madkins, T., Thomas, J. O., Solyom, J., Goode, J., & McAlear, F. (2020). Learner-Centered and Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. In S. Grover (Ed.), Computer Science in K-12: An A-To-Z Handbook on Teaching Programming (pp. 125–129). Edfinity.

Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2003). Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press.

McIlwain, C. D., (2019). Black software: The internet & racial justice, from the Afronet to Black lives matter. Oxford University Press.

Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. Scholastic

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press.

Noble, S., & Roberts, S. (2019). Technological Elites, the Meritocracy, and Postracial Myths in Silicon Valley. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7z3629nh

Philip, T. M., & Sengupta, P. (2021). Theories of learning as theories of society: A contrapuntal approach to expanding disciplinary authenticity in computing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(2), 330-349.

Price-Dennis, D., & Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2021). Advancing racial literacies in teacher education: Activism for equity in digital spaces. Teachers College Press.

Puckett, C. (2022). Digital Adaptability: A New Measure for Digital Inequality Research. Social Science Computer Review, 40(3), 641–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320926087

Rebora, A. (2021). Zaretta Hammond on Equity and Student Engagement. Educational Leadership, 79(4), 14–18

Resnick, M. (2014). Give P’s a chance: Projects, Peers, Passion, Play. Proceedings of Constructionism and Creativity Conference. http://constructionism2014.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/papers/1.2_1-8527.pdf

Royston, R, & Reiter‐Palmon, R.. Creative Self‐efficacy as Mediator Between Creative Mindsets and Creative Problem‐solving. The Journal of creative behavior 53, no. 4 (2019): 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.226

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3

Scott, K. A., Sheridan, K. M., & Clark, K. (2015). Culturally responsive computing: A theory revisited. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), 412–436.

Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2020). Archeology of self. https://www.yolandasealeyruiz.com/archaeology-of-self

Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. V. (2021). Voicing Code in STEM: A Dialogical Imagination. The MIT Press.

Shah, N. (2020, January 6). Asians are good at math? Why dressing up racism as a compliment just doesn’t add up. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/asians-are-good-at-math-why-dressing-up-racism-as-a-compliment-just-doesnt-add-up-128731

Shah, N., & Yadav, A. (2023). Racial Justice Amidst the Dangers of Computing Creep: A Dialogue. TechTrends, 67(3), 467–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00835-z

Sims Bishop, R. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives, 1(3), ix–xi

Vakil, S., & Higgs, J. (2019). It’s About Power. Commun. ACM, 62(3), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306617

Watkins, C. S. (2018). The digital edge: How Black and Latino youth navigate digital inequality. New York University Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/76055

Winn, M. T. (2021). Imagining equity: Leveraging the 5 pedagogical stances. Imagine Learning, Inc.

Zhang, Ren, P., & Deng, L. (2020). Gender Differences in the Creativity–Academic Achievement Relationship: A Study from China. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(3), 725–732. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.387